This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six required criteria for EB-2 exceptional ability classification. Because she did not meet the threshold evidentiary requirement, neither the final merits determination nor the national interest waiver analysis was reached.
The petitioner, a Brazilian human resources management specialist and owner of an HR consulting company, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver based on exceptional ability. She satisfied two of the six required criteria — her academic credentials and her professional license registration in Brazil — but failed to meet the remaining four. Her work history fell short of the required 10 years of full-time experience in the specific occupation, her salary evidence lacked a valid comparison showing exceptional ability, her professional board registration did not qualify as a professional association because membership does not require a bachelor's degree, and her recognition evidence (a lecture invitation, a company magazine appearance, and support letters) was not linked to significant contributions to the HR field. Because she did not clear the three-criterion threshold, neither the final merits determination nor the national interest waiver analysis was conducted.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established two criteria: (1) her Brazilian diploma in human resources management was evaluated as equivalent to three years of U.S. undergraduate coursework, satisfying the academic record criterion; and (2) her registration with Brazil's Regional Board of Administration served as a qualifying professional license.
What failed: 1. Work experience letters described roles as office assistant, financial assistant, beauty consultant, and conservation supervisor — totaling less than 10 years and not confirmed as full-time, making it impossible to show 10 years of full-time HR experience. 2. Salary comparisons were made to the wrong job title (head of HR rather than the petitioner's actual positions) and the income figures were not clearly above peers in her actual occupation. 3. Recognition evidence — a lecture, a company magazine appearance, and support letters — was not connected to recognized achievements or significant contributions to the broader HR field, only to individual employers or a church.
Takeaway: For EB-2 exceptional ability petitions, each criterion must be met on its own terms: work experience letters must explicitly confirm full-time employment in the exact occupation sought, salary comparisons must use the correct benchmark for the petitioner's specific role, and any recognition evidence must be tied to the field as a whole rather than to a single employer or community organization.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully established two criteria: (1) her Brazilian diploma in human resources management was evaluated as equivalent to three years of U.S
- undergraduate coursework, satisfying the academic record criterion
- and (2) her registration with Brazil's Regional Board of Administration served as a qualifying professional license.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Work experience letters described roles as office assistant, financial assistant, beauty consultant, and conservation supervisor — totaling less than 10 years and not confirmed as full-time, making it impossible to show 10 years of full-time HR experience
- Salary comparisons were made to the wrong job title (head of HR rather than the petitioner's actual positions) and the income figures were not clearly above peers in her actual occupation
- Recognition evidence — a lecture, a company magazine appearance, and support letters — was not connected to recognized achievements or significant contributions to the broader HR field, only to individual employers or a church.
Diploma and transcript from Brazilian institution plus Scholaro credential evaluation showing equivalency to three years of U.S. undergraduate coursework in human resources management (criterion A met)
Professional identity card and certificate of good standing from the Regional Board of Administration of the Federal District showing registration as a human resources manager since October 2022 (criterion C met)
Employer declarations showing approximately 9 years and 2 months of varied work experience — fell short of the required 10 years and did not confirm full-time employment (criterion B not met)
Salary evidence including digital employment record and income tax returns — no proper basis for comparison showing salaries demonstrated exceptional ability relative to others in the field (criterion D not met)
Registration with the Regional Board of Administration of the Federal District as a professional association — Law No. 4769 does not require a bachelor's degree for all registrants, so it is not a qualifying professional association (criterion E not met)
Declaration from military police officer about a lecture on creative productivity for women — did not explain why petitioner was selected or connect the invitation to recognized achievements in HR (criterion F not met)
Appearance in Applause magazine — recognized contributions to a single employer, not achievements and significant contributions to the field of human resources (criterion F not met)
Letters of support from former colleagues, church volunteers, and mentees — praised personal skills but lacked specific details connecting duties to significant contributions to the HR field (criterion F not met)
Completed
I-140 filed
Human resources management specialist and owner/managing director of an HR consulting company serving small and medium-sized enterprises
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-05-21
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six required criteria for EB-2 exceptional ability classification. Because she did not meet the threshold evidentiary requirement, neither the final merits determination nor the national interest waiver analysis was reached.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee